26 Death Sentences Affirmed on Direct Review in 2005

In 2005, the California Supreme Court issued decisions in 26 death penalty appeals, affirming all 26 death sentences. The vast majority of the decisions were unanimous and affirmed the judgments in their entirety. (Decisions in habeas cases are not listed, nor are abatements due to the death of the appellant (see e.g. here and here).)

The consistency in result and unanimity of opinion is quite remarkable, and was not limited to death cases. A year-in-review article (registration required) published in the Recorder today notes that of 111 decisions handed down in 2005, 85 were unanimous ("52 were 7-0 and 33 were 6-0"). (The one death penalty reversal noted in the article was on habeas review.)

All 26 direct appeals are listed below with links to the opinions and summaries of the results.

People v. Robinson, no. S040703 (Dec. 15, 2005);

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George
• judgment affirmed in entirety
  
• Justice Moreno (joined by Justice Kennard) wrote a short concurrence, noting his argreement that the defendant had waived a challenge to penalty-phase victim impact evidence, but also stating that some of the testimony of the victim's family was not admissible because it constituted opinion or charchterization of the crime or defendant, rather than reflecting on loss to society or family caused by the victim's deat. Click here to see the paragraphs describing the offensive testimony.
• Associate Justice (and Cal. Supreme Court Nominee) Carol Corrigan was assigned to this case to fill Janice Rogers Brown's former seat.

People v. Manriquez, no. S038073 (Dec. 5, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Elliott, no. S057063 (Nov. 28, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Moreno
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Harris, no. S058092 (Aug. 29, 2005)

• 5-1 decision authored by Justice Chin
• judgment affirmed in entirety
• Justice Kennard dissented, concluding:
  
  • the trial court erred in questioning defendant in front of the jury in way that revealed court's disbelief of defendant; this error, however, was harmless;
  • the trial court prejudially erred in excluding defense evidence---that the victim of attempted murder was dealing drugs and the victim of the murder (his girlfriend) was in joint possession of the drugs---during the penalty phase. This evidence was admissible under 190.3(a) as circumstances of the offense and was also relevant to rebut victim impact evidence.

People v. Gray, no. S014664 (Aug. 25, 2005)

• unanimous opinion authored by Justice Werdeger
• judgment affirmed in entirety
• Justices Baxter and Chin wrote concurrences suggesting that People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 605-606, should be reconsidered to the extent it held that the work product privilege precludes a prosecutor from arguing that defense failure to call experts who had examined forensic evidence indicated they had nothing helpful to contribute.

People v. Schmeck, no. S015008 (Aug. 25, 2005); modified 10/12/05

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Moon, no. S021054 (Aug. 18, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Werdeger
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Cornwell, no. S046176 (Aug. 18, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Carter, no. S014021 (Aug. 15, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Carter, no. S023000 (Aug. 15, 2005), modified Oct. 26, 2005

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George;
• lying-in-wait special circumstance vacated for insufficient evidence; convictions and death sentence otherwise affirmed;
• Justice Kennard, who joined the main opinion, wrote a separate concurrence, noting the prosecutor improperly commented on the defense failure to call witnesses. But she would find the error harmless.

People v. Dunkle, no. S014200 (Aug. 4, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Kennard
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Blair, no. S011636 (July 28, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice George
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Kennedy, no. S037195 (July 27, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Kennard
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Davis, no. S012945 (July 21, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Kennard
• one robbery count vacated due to error in failing to give unanmity instruction on which act constituted robbery; judgment otherwise affirmed

People v. Wilson, no. S039632 (July 11, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Chin
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Ward, no. S019697 (June 30, 2005); modified 9/7/05

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Brown
• judgment was modified to conform to verdict, such that special circumstance was prior murder conviction; judgment otherwise affirmed

People v. Samuels, no. S042278 (June 27, 2005), modified 9/21/05

• 5-2 decision, majority opinion authored by Justice Brown;
• judgment affirmed in entirety;
• Justice Werdeger, joined by Justice Kennard, concurred, but wrote "separately ... to suggest the time has come to modify our position concerning whether a jury in a capital case should be completely informed of the meaning of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole." (I.e. CALJIC 8.84 appears to be inadequate.)
• Justice Kennard wrote a separate concurrence and dissent, on two points: (1) while fact that the defendant gained financially from death was admissible, the trial court erred in admitting evidence on how defendant spent money she inherited (this error was harmless); (2) majority failed to determine whether prosecutor's biblical reference were error because it found them not prejudicial; Justice Kennard, however, found it necessary to decide question of error because "majority is wrong when it says that a prosecutor’s improper reliance on religious authority is harmless if it is only a 'small part' of the prosecutor’s closing argument." (She went on to find the reference to the bible was not error because it was part of an argument that the jury should not be persuaded either way by the bible.)

People v. Dickey, no. S025519 (May 23, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Brown
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Roldan, no. S030644 (Apr. 25, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Werdeger
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Stitely, no. S028970 (Mar. 21, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Baxter
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Panah, no. S045504 (Mar. 14, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Moreno
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Gregory Smith, no. S026223 (Mar. 10, 2005), modified Apr. 27, 2005

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Kennard
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Vieira, no. S026040 (Mar. 7, 2005)

• 6-1 decision authored by Justice Moreno;
• death sentence for conspiracy to commit murder, which is not a death-eligible offense, vacated; remanded for imposition of 25-to-life term on that count; death sentences on three other offenses affirmed;
• judgment otherwise affirmed;
• Justice Kennard wrote a separate concurrence and dissent noting (1) the trial court erred in excluding expert witness on cults, but the error was harmless; (2) finding that the prosecutor's biblical references in closing argument were prejudicial error, resulting in her vote to vacate the death sentences;
• in a modification filed on May 26, 2005, the court "remand[ed] to the trial court for reconsideration of the question of a restitution fine under the currently applicable statute".

People v. Harrison, S035367 (Mar. 3, 2005)

• 5-2 decision authored by Justice Kennard;
• judgment affirmed in entirety;
• Justice Moreno, joined by Justice Werdeger, wrote a concurring opinion in which he concluded that the prosecutor's biblical references in the guilt-phase closing argument was misconduct, but not prejudicial.

People v. Benavides, no. S033440 (Feb. 17, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Brown
• judgment affirmed in entirety

People v. Robert Young, no. S018909 (Jan. 31, 2005)

• unanimous decision authored by Justice Brown
• judgment affirmed in entirety
• Justice Brown also authored a separate concurrence in which she expressed doubt about the holding in People v. Motton (1985) 39 Cal.3d 596 that black women constitute a cognizable group for Batson purposes. While she wouldn't reject the possibility, she didn't see an evidentiary basis for the holding in Motton, or for a similar holding in the case before the court: "I would not reject, as a matter of law, the possibility that Black women might be the victims of a unique type of group discrimination justifying their designation as a cognizable group, but  I see no evidentiary basis in Motton for us to have made a judicial finding to that effect, binding in all jury selection proceedings, and I see no such evidentiary basis in this case either." (Because the majority did not find purposeful discrimination, the question did not need to be decided.)